In the Sept. 8 Chronicle “article,” “Walden Talks Politics...”, Congressman Walden stated “Indivisible, which seems to draw a lot of extremists, is not a movement designed to build agreement and unity.” Walden's assertion is absolutely untrue. In making such a statement Walden is using a common political scare tactic, which is intended to divert attention to a supposed “enemy” or “other” rather than taking a morally sound position and speaking to the issues. By calling people extremists he attacks the messenger rather than the message.
Actually, Indivisible is a recently developed organization which is purposely designed to build agreement and unity. As you read the following observations most readers will agree; Indivisible is not advocating an extreme agenda and is already building agreement and unity.
First, Indivisible was a leader building agreement and unity among millions of Americans, in fact a solid majority, to resist the health care proposal partially authored by Walden and pushed through his congressional committee.
Furthermore, Indivisible is one of the major organizations building a coalition working to secure health insurance for all Americans. Who is extreme, Indivisible or Walden?
Second, thanks in part to the efforts of Indivisible in building agreement and unity, support for protection of DACA Dreamers has surpassed 70 percent of the electorate.
Why hasn't Walden been out front leading on this issue? His silence lends support to Trump's extreme position of ending the DACA program and deporting the Dreamers.
Third, Americans are increasingly concluding that climate change is real, that it is related to human activities and that it must be factored into all political decisions.
This growing agreement and unity among American citizens has been strongly supported by Indivisible. What we hear from Walden on this major issue is stunning silence.
Fourth, Americans are also increasingly favoring a rapid transition to renewable energy sources. Indivisible strongly supports such a transition. Walden, however, remains stuck supporting the harmful and unsustainable use of fossil fuels. Which is the extreme position?
Supporting the above positions is certainly not extreme. These positions are practical, compassionate, and supportive of the needs of most Americans, including the citizens living in the 2nd Congressional District of Oregon.
Ask yourself who is really advocating extreme positions and why! Why did Walden not address these issues in the article? Who is he answering to? Follow the money!
Commented
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.